About your Search

20100901
20100901
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
security. u.s. troops pulled out last summer. iraqi forces had moved into the lead with considerable skill and commitment to their fellow citizens. even as they continue to suffer terrorist attacks, security infancies have been near the lowest on record since the war began. iraqi forces had taken the fight to al qaeda. this year sell iraq called incredible elections i drew a strong turnout. a caretaker administration is in place. tonight i encourage the leaders to move forward with a sense of urgency in coming to form a government that is just representative and accountable to the iraqi people. there should be no doubt that the people will have a strong partner in the united states. going forward, and the transitional force of u.s. troops will remain in iraq with a different mission. they will support iraqi troops in targeted counter-terrorism missions and protecting our civilians. a consistent with our agreement with the government come on u.s. troops will leave by the end of next year as our military draws down, are dedicated civilians are moving into the lead to support iraq as a result
that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. >> iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant, who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. >> we know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. >> saddam hussein has and is amassing weapons of mass destruction to use against america. that, of course, turned out to be bullpucky as well. leading bush administration war proponent paul wolfowitz conceded later that it was mostly for political convenience that the bush administration decided to go with the whole w.m.d. argument in the early stages of the war. speaking from the white house briefing room on april 10th, 2003, press secretary ari fleischer said this. make to mistake, as i said earlier, we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. that is what this war was about and is about. no, it isn't. and no, it wasn't. ever. once the war was well under way, even the administration was forced to concede, reluctantly, that there weren't weapons of mass destruc
stated, there is no doubt that iran has weapons of mass destruction and that he is planning on using them against our friends, are allies, and against us. >> they are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. >> suddam hussein has and used mass destruction weapons against america. that, of course, has turned out to be bull puck key as well. press secretary said this. make no mistake, as i said earlier, we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. that is what this war was about and is about. no it isn't and no it wasn't ever. even the bush administration was forced to concede reluctantly that there were not weapons of mass destruction where upon the president decided to make it into a joke. >> no weapons over there. maybe under here. >> that was just as hilarious at the time as it still is today, with more than 4,400 american lives to bolster the belly laughs. ultimately, none of the things our government, at the time, told us were the reasons we had to start a war in iraq were true. opponents of the war said
drag us back to 1970. >> i inkjected -- i injected history into our discussion early on. i have to at least note the two-state solution that is been part of the diplomacy in this conflict since 1937. we're now going on 73 years, and the chances that the two-state solution, in my view, is going to disappear from the lexicon in this conflict any time soon are fairly soon. with that, ladies and gentlemen, let me thank all my panelists for participating in today's event and thank all of you and all of you out in for -- out there for joining us in our discussion. [applause] >> thank you. >> search the term "mid east peace" on line at the c-span library and you will get more than ,000 transcripts including an early mike wallace interview of abba eban. it is washington and the world your way. >> president obama's address to the nation last night in about a half-hour. before that, house minority leader john boehner's speech on troop withdrawals. >> vice president joe biden will attend an exchange in military command ceremony on c-span2. after that, the financial inquigs begins a series
to have you with us tonight. is it really a scam? is it all about making money or does beck really want to bring this country back to god, what do you think? >> well, according to "forbes" magazine, the beck enterprises made $32 million last year. so unless glenn beck is prepared to turn all of that money over to charities, i think that we can clearly and safety call him on his hypocrisy. and maybe it's a good campaign to lead, ed. we encourage beck to give the money away, because he wouldn't want to profit from something, right? so i think there's a strong, clear case about what you were saying, the money is a driving force here. and the irony of this man, sort of taking on the mantle of dr. king, you know that dr. king would be right up on the board with van jones and color of change and all the other people that beck has gone after. >> why is it then when liberals are passionate, we're labeled as angry? yet when conservatives get passionate, they're just great americans? is this just a conversational trip that these folks are on, what do you think? >> well, it's the fact that they're
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5